From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A9ADDDFD for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:19:03 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20070918152302.GB788@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> References: <20070917165746.GP6563@loki.buserror.net> <58472170-34D3-43F4-A816-87AF0020A086@kernel.crashing.org> <20070918151147.GB736@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <027F3363-3154-4A16-A251-C56D8DC339A1@kernel.crashing.org> <20070918152302.GB788@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/28] 8xx: Don't call non-existent Soft_emulate_8xx from SoftwareEmulation. Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:21:59 -0500 To: Scott Wood Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sep 18, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:19:05AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >> Mainly that 8xx has been doing this for a vast number of years and I >> see no reason to stop doing it at this point. >> >> While I can see that it might be misleading, clearly 8xx linux users >> haven't had issues with it. > > Or they haven't said anything. :-P :) > How about a three-way choice of full emulation, minimal emulation, > and no > emulation? I think I'd be ok with that. - k